#104Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 25 2012 at 11:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So, I figured that I would share this. So, at work, it's been pretty slow and I've been engaging in "debates" with the Military Intelligence officer (who is stereotypically as nerdy as Signal Officers). Within in a short time, we covered religion/creation of the universe, abortion and some less "hot topics". We didn't necessarily agree, but yet somehow everything was understood and ended at a mutual understanding/agreement.

Ahh yes, the generic "MIo" that you claim said so and so and so is so much more reliable proof of your argument's validity than the dozen people who's written word can be found by a simple button press! Just like how right you were when you said changing to officer would cause a pay cut because "all the people who jumped to the dark side said so," right? Tell us about your "girlfriend" who lives in another country next.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

We didn't necessarily agree, but yet somehow everything was understood and ended at a mutual understanding/agreement. [...] Funny how those outcomes NEVER come out with you guys.... But, I'm sure it's me..... of course it is...

You tell me, when in these threads did you "agree to disagree" and end the thread with mutual agreement?

Ahh yes, the generic "MIo" that you claim said so and so and so is so much more reliable proof of your argument's validity than the dozen people who's written word can be found by a simple button press! Just like how right you were when you said changing to officer would cause a pay cut because "all the people who jumped to the dark side said so," right? Tell us about your "girlfriend" who lives in another country next.

I admitted to being wrong. I just went from my experiences. I never heard anyone say what you said ever. That was true because what you said was complete and utter BS that you made up. Nice try on trying to put that on me....

!! Yeah, my saying "there is no paycut to changing" was complete and utter BS, even though it turned out to be 100% true! You know, exactly like I said? But hey, what do I know? I only work with payrolls and contracts and stuff as a recruiter. Brilliant, ya got me there Scruffy.

Edited, Jan 25th 2012 12:47pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

!! Yeah, my saying "there is no paycut to changing" was complete and utter BS, even though it turned out to be 100% true! You know, exactly like I said? Brilliant, ya got me there Scruffy.

I do recall you stating something along the lines that you keep your current pay until your new rank and pay caught up with your previous pay. That's utter BS, because since you always get a "raise", your "current pay" would be a paycut..

We didn't necessarily agree, but yet somehow everything was understood and ended at a mutual understanding/agreement. [...] Funny how those outcomes NEVER come out with you guys.... But, I'm sure it's me..... of course it is...

You tell me, when in these threads did you "agree to disagree" and end the thread with mutual agreement?

Guys, guess what? I just talked to my friend Frank, who's a staunch social conservative. We got to talking about a whole bunch of issues, like DADT, *** marriage, and the pros/cons of peeing on native peoples.

After talking with him for a while, he realized the error of his logic, and came around to my way of thinking. Then he gave me $25 and came out of the closet. Funny how that never happens with certain people on this forum...

PS: I brought up some of the arguments put forth by those certain people here, and just like every person I've mentioned them to, he had a big ol' laugh and called them sad, sad wastes of the gift of life.

#113Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 25 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The funniest thing about this, people still believe the stuff I say are lies. I have never lied once (to my recollection) on this forum. So, it's funny how you believe these people from the past 8 years are all imaginary. And you claim that I'm denial...

Oh god I'm laughing to death here at how little Alma knows about the military, and how hard he's trying to spin to save face. Ahh, classic. Yes, I said you don't get a pay cut, I said you get the higher pay, and should the higher pay be higher than the current rank than you continue to make the higher pay until the rankpay catches up. I said it here and here, and now a third time in this thread. I'm sure the Five Star General you just finished talking to is telling you that, although I just provided links to exactly what I said (that you make the higher pay, and if that is the older rank than that's the pay you make), that I didn't actually say that.

Ahh, my stomach hurts from laughing.

Edited, Jan 25th 2012 12:59pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I'm sure the Five Star General you just finished talking to is telling you that, although I just provided links to exactly what I said (that you make the higher pay, and if that is the older rank than that's the pay you make), that I didn't actually say that.

Ahh, my stomach hurts from laughing.

I just imagined Alma as a basement-dwelling nerd, dressed up in full officer gear that he bought at the Army/Navy store, being consoled by an imaginary naked General Patton with butterfly wings that floats next to his head.

He reassures Alma that nobody suspects a thing. Then he tells him to put on his mom's clothes and dance to The Cure.

#118Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 25 2012 at 12:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) WRONG.. If you're so sure of yourself.. Use the current paychart and give me an example of where a NCO would take a paycut.

No, you show me where changing to an officer would result in a paycut, since that was your claim*. My claim was you'd never get a paycut. I'm not doing your work for you. Thanks, I had almost recovered from the last bout of laughter, and now I have more.

* Sorry, that's wrong. It was your and "every NCO who jumped to the dark side you spoke with" 's claim.

Edited, Jan 25th 2012 1:14pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I'm sure the Five Star General you just finished talking to is telling you that, although I just provided links to exactly what I said (that you make the higher pay, and if that is the older rank than that's the pay you make), that I didn't actually say that.

Ahh, my stomach hurts from laughing.

I just imagined Alma as a basement-dwelling nerd, dressed up in full officer gear that he bought at the Army/Navy store, being consoled by an imaginary naked General Patton with butterfly wings that floats next to his head.

He reassures Alma that nobody suspects a thing. Then he tells him to put on his mom's clothes and dance to The Cure.

#125Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 25 2012 at 2:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I gave an accurate answer.. The reality is, the difference is minor and no one pays attention. Everyone said that we would be making less money in KU as opposed to in IZ, yet after checking my LES, I actually made more than last month due to the annual raise. So, if you think it's impossible for a number of people to be wrong on how much money they earn, then you're sadly mistaken. I was told by my previous boss that "officers shouldn't look for payday", because I was excited for payday.

If by accurate you mean completely and one hundred million percent wrong, then sure. Your answer was "accurate." In that it was the exact opposite of accurate. Adding this: No, really. If you're too stupid to understand the basic English that I laid on you, which any new recruit that comes into my office and asks understands easily, that's your problem. ****, all the military layman in this forum figured it out pretty easily. So it's just you, all those NCOs you "spoke to" that said they all got paycuts (chuckle), the MIo you say agrees with you as well, and the Ninety-Seven Star Super Colonel General that just walked in to agree with you, that don't get it.

It's a good thing you're not in any position that requires real thought and intelligence, or all those soldiers would be as good as dead.

Edited, Jan 25th 2012 4:21pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

That .0001% is usually the difference between indifference of the soldiers and lobbing mortars into a base.

Doubtful. Anyone angered enough by it to take violent action was almost certainly already on the "side" of the folks who got peed on and would have acted violently anyway. Everyone else is like "Yeah, that's not a very nice thing to do. Lets go get a beer".

There's this thing called the middle ground.

There's also this thing called reading comprehension.

Quote:

Those not involved in the fighting and never will be. The type of people who, if treated fairly, would help the US soldiers with information, albeit, maybe only small bits. Those people would look at this and think a good old GFY is in order. Those that think, "I don't like the Taliban, but I hate the US more."

Yup. And those people are unlikely to progress from ambivalence (or even willingness to help) to "lobbing mortars" at us just because some of our soldiers peed on some guys they'd killed. They are most likely to simply *not* help us. I've never said that there are no negative consequences, nor do I think there should be. I'm simply responding to claims that this will have some significant effect on violence towards us.

It wont. As I said above, those who'd take such offense at this that it would drive them to engage in violence were already well on their way there anyway.

And those people are unlikely to progress from ambivalence (or even willingness to help) to "lobbing mortars" at us just because some of our soldiers peed on some guys they'd killed.

I know Romney told you otherwise, but it actually takes very little to go from ambivalence to suicide bombing over there.

I know it's a popular means to dismiss someone's position by insisting (repeatedly apparently) that they're just parroting what someone else said, but I honestly would never have heard of this issue at all if it wasn't for this thread. I'm certainly not repeating something I heard. I'm basing my position on an apparently rare ability to assess the responses of most people to something like this.

Most people will say "tsk tsk". They might even demand an apology. That's about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that very many people would not turn to violence when we run around with our military in their country, still not turn to violence when overthrow their current leaders and replace them with ones more friendly to us, still not turn to violence when we bomb villages and what little infrastructure they have, still not turn to violence when we impose curfews, still not turn to violence as their mobility within their own country is limited by armed soldiers at checkpoints, still not turn to violence when we kill their fellow countrymen, but learning that some soldiers peed on the body of someone they killed will be the magical trigger that sets them off on a course of violence.

That's silly enough for one person to say, and shocking that so many people seem **** bent on defending it.

That's where your problem is. It seems to be a major problem with you, but that's neither here nor there. You base your worldview on your opinion only. You're using your beliefs to analyze their culture and their situation and their beliefs and how they'll react, and discounting historical evidence that disagrees with you soundly. It's really far from what you would believe. Convoys get attacked because they stopped at a town and one of the male soldiers looked at one of the females for too long. That's all, just looked at and boom. You've ever seen a mob of people go from indifferent to violent simply because someone grab an arm that was trying to slap them?

I don't doubt for a second the video is being circulated, with narration about how their innocent countrymen are being murdered and desecrated. Like I said, I know you've been told to downplay it to the best of your ability, and like a good little soldier you're going to do that, but to even pretend that the video isn't going to be used (and has already, mind you) as more tools to incite violence against us makes you a stupid fuck.

Edited, Jan 25th 2012 5:15pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

All your posts demonstrate is what little cultural sensitivity you have. Values aren't universal--your opinion on whether or not something is important means nothing in a different cultural context.

Guess what! Just because it wouldn't be a significant trigger for you doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a significant trigger in many other parts of the world. Remember when we killed Osama bin Laden? We gave him a burial at sea for three reasons. 1, it was a proper burial under Islamic law. 2, It meant that we didn't have to worry about some idiots desecrating his grave and seriously damaging US-Islamic relations. 3, It meant that his grave wouldn't become a rallying point for Islamic extremists.

All three of those reasons were significant and important.

Under Islamic law, desecrating a body is one of the worst crimes a human might commit. It was actually a law declared by Muhammad himself, and the fact that extremist groups do it is a significant part of what alienates them from more moderate muslims.

Thing is, once we start doing it too, all we do is set ourselves up as an equally evil entity. We want to appear to them as the antithesis of extremists to Muslims, so as to gain their support. We can't do that if we are violating some of their most important moral laws in disgusting and depraved ways.

You might not care. But to pretend like the most important party in this context wouldn't is asinine.

And those people are unlikely to progress from ambivalence (or even willingness to help) to "lobbing mortars" at us just because some of our soldiers peed on some guys they'd killed.

I know Romney told you otherwise, but it actually takes very little to go from ambivalence to suicide bombing over there.

I know it's a popular means to dismiss someone's position by insisting (repeatedly apparently) that they're just parroting what someone else said, but I honestly would never have heard of this issue at all if it wasn't for this thread.

Wow, you really *don't* get your news from anywhere. For a few days there, you couldn't watch any news show without hearing about this.

I know it's a popular means to dismiss someone's position by insisting (repeatedly apparently) that they're just parroting what someone else said, but I honestly would never have heard of this issue at all if it wasn't for this thread. I'm certainly not repeating something I heard.

You know what? I believe you.

I figure someone as deeply indoctrinated as you doesn't need a daily memo to be able to spout the party line like a little wind-up toy

Quote:

I'm basing my position on an apparently rare ability to assess the responses of most people to something like this.

It's not so rare. For instance, I've been able to assess your responses and determine that you're a precious little puppet for the GOP.

#137Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 26 2012 at 5:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sooooo. Where is that example of a NCO making less money becoming an officer as you claim? Here, let me help you out. Here is the 2012 pay chart, please point out a scenario where that would be true.

#138Almalieque,
Posted:Jan 26 2012 at 5:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Those convoys are most likely attacked for simply being there. I came in at the end and we were attacked a hand full of times and we were focusing on leaving. I'm not denying that there isn't any increase of violence for such activities, but there is no evidence suggesting that they wouldn't have done it anyway... Especially, given the fact that they are "at war".

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

Most states it would be two years prison and $500 maximum. Not having my books with me, I'm "pretty sure" it would also include a reduction in rank and at least a less-than-honorable discharge as far as UCMJ is concerned.

Depends how the court-martial directs. There isn't really "mandatory" punishments in the military court system only maximum punishments. The same charge on separate occasions could have different awards. In this example the accused would be charged with Articles 134, 133, 117, 98, 93, 92, and the cameraman would possibly get hit with article 78.

You have to watch the wording "As a court-martial may direct". The military courts could very well just defer this to NJP (non-judicial punishment) in which case their CO could slap them on the hands and call it a day. Or he can give them an OTH (other than honorable) discharge. Considering the amount of publicity this has gotten it is unlikely the courts will defer to NJP.

That said, it's a perfectly good waste of urine; I would have used pig blood.

-NW

____________________________

The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.

That's where your problem is. It seems to be a major problem with you, but that's neither here nor there. You base your worldview on your opinion only.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing about you. You don't think you're at all projecting maybe? You're not judging others actions based on how you perceive things? You're the one with the image of these people as just being a hairs breadth away from blowing things up, so that something like this sets them off. But does it occur to you that most of the people living in that part of the world aren't actually like that?

Your own attempts to appear worldly show how narrow focused you really are. If you honestly saw the people in that region as more than the stereotypes you've been taught, you'd realize just how silly (and frankly offensive) you are being. You honestly assume that they are innately more prone to violence than we are? You've bought the propaganda.

Quote:

You're using your beliefs to analyze their culture and their situation and their beliefs and how they'll react, and discounting historical evidence that disagrees with you soundly.

No. You are. The problem is that the "historical evidence" you base your assumptions on is the narrow view you have of those people based on what you see on your TV screen.

Quote:

It's really far from what you would believe. Convoys get attacked because they stopped at a town and one of the male soldiers looked at one of the females for too long. That's all, just looked at and boom. You've ever seen a mob of people go from indifferent to violent simply because someone grab an arm that was trying to slap them?

Uh huh. Perfect example. Your TV doesn't show you all the times that people *don't* get violent at such minor things, so your perception of the likely response is skewed. You think what you see on TV is "typical" behavior? Anywhere? Wow. Just... wow.

Quote:

I don't doubt for a second the video is being circulated, with narration about how their innocent countrymen are being murdered and desecrated.

And I'm sure that there will be some small number of fools who will also think that what they're seeing is "typical". See how that's a problem?

Quote:

Like I said, I know you've been told to downplay it to the best of your ability, and like a good little soldier you're going to do that, but to even pretend that the video isn't going to be used (and has already, mind you) as more tools to incite violence against us makes you a stupid fuck.

It's amazing how you see brainwashing and manipulation everywhere except in your own perceptions of things. You're like a case study of obliviousness.

It's pretty obvious to me (and everyone else save you, in all likelihood) that the context of the conversation was about people who already have the capacity for a violent reaction, and not a generalization about the entire middle eastern world. By trying to paint lolgaxe as some kind of bigot, you're just showing that you've lost your tenuous grasp of what on earth's being discussed. Par for the course, that.

It's not a stretch that some could take to violence based on such inciting. Never know what straw will break the camel's back. And it only takes one to cause very detrimental negative consequences to those soldier's actions. Of course, there are plenty of other reasons that it was a bad idea, and they should be duly punished for it.

That's where your problem is. It seems to be a major problem with you, but that's neither here nor there. You base your worldview on your opinion only.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing about you. You don't think you're at all projecting maybe? You're not judging others actions based on how you perceive things? You're the one with the image of these people as just being a hairs breadth away from blowing things up, so that something like this sets them off. But does it occur to you that most of the people living in that part of the world aren't actually like that?

Your own attempts to appear worldly show how narrow focused you really are. If you honestly saw the people in that region as more than the stereotypes you've been taught, you'd realize just how silly (and frankly offensive) you are being. You honestly assume that they are innately more prone to violence than we are? You've bought the propaganda.

Quote:

You're using your beliefs to analyze their culture and their situation and their beliefs and how they'll react, and discounting historical evidence that disagrees with you soundly.

No. You are. The problem is that the "historical evidence" you base your assumptions on is the narrow view you have of those people based on what you see on your TV screen.

Quote:

It's really far from what you would believe. Convoys get attacked because they stopped at a town and one of the male soldiers looked at one of the females for too long. That's all, just looked at and boom. You've ever seen a mob of people go from indifferent to violent simply because someone grab an arm that was trying to slap them?

Uh huh. Perfect example. Your TV doesn't show you all the times that people *don't* get violent at such minor things, so your perception of the likely response is skewed. You think what you see on TV is "typical" behavior? Anywhere? Wow. Just... wow.

Quote:

I don't doubt for a second the video is being circulated, with narration about how their innocent countrymen are being murdered and desecrated.

And I'm sure that there will be some small number of fools who will also think that what they're seeing is "typical". See how that's a problem?

Quote:

Like I said, I know you've been told to downplay it to the best of your ability, and like a good little soldier you're going to do that, but to even pretend that the video isn't going to be used (and has already, mind you) as more tools to incite violence against us makes you a stupid fuck.

It's amazing how you see brainwashing and manipulation everywhere except in your own perceptions of things. You're like a case study of obliviousness.

So you've been over there and dealt with this first-hand, but lolgaxe hasn't?

I like how his only defense was to argue that we were making generalizations about every middle eastern person. Especially when his argument was that everyone who would attack us over this was going to attack us anyway...

I think that the conditions that they have lived under for so long - constant infighting, invasions, occupation, martial law - lends a lot to some of these reactions. Most people just want to live their lives, and will try to continue doing so under some rather extreme circumstances. But, even after getting by as various armed forces battle to and fro, after keeping their heads down, trying to help whomever will leave them in a better situation, or just trying to stay out of the way...watching a group of soldiers blatantly disrespect some of their most honored traditions and literally **** on their dearly-held customs will make anyone GO COMPLETELY APESHIT.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

It's pretty obvious to me (and everyone else save you, in all likelihood) that the context of the conversation was about people who already have the capacity for a violent reaction, and not a generalization about the entire middle eastern world.

Ah... Which is more or less exactly what I said back when this whole side argument started:

gbaji wrote:

lolgaxe wrote:

That .0001% is usually the difference between indifference of the soldiers and lobbing mortars into a base.

Quote:

Doubtful. Anyone angered enough by it to take violent action was almost certainly already on the "side" of the folks who got peed on and would have acted violently anyway. Everyone else is like "Yeah, that's not a very nice thing to do. Lets go get a beer".

And in case anyone was confused, I repeated it again:

gbaji wrote:

Yup. And those people are unlikely to progress from ambivalence (or even willingness to help) to "lobbing mortars" at us just because some of our soldiers peed on some guys they'd killed. They are most likely to simply *not* help us. I've never said that there are no negative consequences, nor do I think there should be. I'm simply responding to claims that this will have some significant effect on violence towards us.

It wont. As I said above, those who'd take such offense at this that it would drive them to engage in violence were already well on their way there anyway.

And just in case some were still confused, I repeated it yet again:

gbaji wrote:

Most people will say "tsk tsk". They might even demand an apology. That's about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that very many people would not turn to violence when we run around with our military in their country, still not turn to violence when overthrow their current leaders and replace them with ones more friendly to us, still not turn to violence when we bomb villages and what little infrastructure they have, still not turn to violence when we impose curfews, still not turn to violence as their mobility within their own country is limited by armed soldiers at checkpoints, still not turn to violence when we kill their fellow countrymen, but learning that some soldiers peed on the body of someone they killed will be the magical trigger that sets them off on a course of violence.

What part of my posts were unclear about this? I was talking about to what degree such an act would increase violence against us. It's not going to turn otherwise peaceful folks into suicide bombers. It might be used as a rationale for a specific attack, but by people who'd use something else for said rationale anyway.

Quote:

By trying to paint lolgaxe as some kind of bigot, you're just showing that you've lost your tenuous grasp of what on earth's being discussed.

When I argue that folks not inclined towards violence against us aren't going to start doing violence against us because of this incident and he insists that I'm wrong because I just don't understand how easily those Aghans become violent he's doing a great job of showing his bigotry without me needing to help him. Need I remind you of this little gem?

lolgaxe wrote:

You're using your beliefs to analyze their culture and their situation and their beliefs and how they'll react, and discounting historical evidence that disagrees with you soundly. It's really far from what you would believe. Convoys get attacked because they stopped at a town and one of the male soldiers looked at one of the females for too long. That's all, just looked at and boom. You've ever seen a mob of people go from indifferent to violent simply because someone grab an arm that was trying to slap them?

He's attributing the tendency towards responding to minor events with violence as an aspect of their culture. He's blaming me for not seeing his view of their cultural tendency towards easily provoked violence. You see no bigotry here? He's making the equivalent of saying "those darkies are all lazy and will rape your women if you don't watch out!". But he's not being bigoted. He's just got a better feel for the culture he's talking about.

Sorry. I disagree. I think he's no different than anyone who attributes characteristics to a group he's not super familiar with based solely on what he's heard about them on TV and in the papers. He's not doing it out of maliciousness. He's almost certainly not even aware that what he said was incredibly bigoted. But it doesn't change the fact that his responses are the result of a false perception about another culture.

Quote:

It's not a stretch that some could take to violence based on such inciting.

Some? Sure. But that some represents a very small percentage of the population. And that some represents almost exclusively those who were inclined towards such actions towards us anyway.

Quote:

Never know what straw will break the camel's back.

Sure. But at the risk of repeating myself, when you're one minor straw away from strapping bombs on yourself and killing some folks, that "last straw" will happen even if this event isn't it (or doesn't happen). It's somewhat absurd to insist that the entire rest of the world cease doing anything which might make someone upset because that one thing might just be that last straw.

[quote]And it only takes one to cause very detrimental negative consequences to those soldier's actions.

But don't you think someone for whom this is the tipping point to violence would find one pretty soon anyway? Sure. It wouldn't be that exact violence on that exact day for that exact reason. But it would be some other violence, on some other day, for some other reason. Do you think that if this event had not happened that anyone who might do violence because of it would otherwise have lived a peaceful life and never done anything violent ever?

You've got to have a pretty warped view of human behavior to think that this has any significant effect on violence over time in that region. That doesn't make it right, but I've never said it was. I just find the whole "OMG. Because of this, our soldiers and our allies will suffer more attacks!!!". The timing and stated reasons for the attacks may change, but total number over time? Probably not affected at all.

[quote]Of course, there are plenty of other reasons that it was a bad idea, and they should be duly punished for it.

Yeah. Which is more relevant to the original post. No one actually said it was "A-OK" (interesting how some feel the need to exaggerate and attack the exaggeration). My initial response was that we should make sure that the soldiers aren't scapegoated and end out suffering greater punishment than is normal for a crime of this nature. No one's arguing that they should get off scott free, or that what they did was just peachy.